[1910] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Ipfwadm 2.0beta1 for 1.3.61 and higher
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jacques Gelinas)
Tue Feb 13 02:38:50 1996
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 19:15:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Jacques Gelinas <jack@solucorp.qc.ca>
To: Jos Vos <jos@xos.nl>
cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199602121630.RAA00785@minnie.xos.nl>
Hello!
I have download the latest ipfwadm. I have read the man page.
Here is my question.
Should ipfw be junked ?
I see ipfwadm as a superset of ipfw. Am I wrong ?
Why am I asking that ?
I am writing an admin package for Linux. It is called Linuxconf.
I have already "published" it. It currently do a lot of admin task
including firewalling. While not finished, it makes it fairly easy for a
newcomer to fill the different forms and configure properly a firewall
(As least the basic ones). It currently computes the rules and issue
some calls to ipfw. It could very well call ipfwadm.
So here is my question again. Currently ipfw is not usable with 1.3.6x
kernel. Given the availability of ipfwadm, why should we care. I don't
see ipfw as a standard anyway and ipfwadm is not much different to use.
What do you think ?
Am I missing something ?
Does ipfwadm do too much magic of its own to be "safely" called by
a front end (Doing itself some assumption) ?
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Gelinas (jacques@solucorp.qc.ca)
Use Linux without reformating: Use UMSDOS.
